PRAKASH CHAND MODI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, for the assessment year 1977-78 under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, referred the following question of law for the opinion of the High Court :

(2.) IT is contended by learned counsel for the assessee that the question framed by the Tribunal does not arise in the present case because the Wealth-tax Officer, Central Circle, Jodhpur, disallowed the claim of the assessee for the exemption under Section 5(1)(iv) of the Act as the factory building is not covered under this definition and the question referred by the Tribunal, therefore, requires to be reframed ; or in the alternative, the Tribunal may be directed to send a fresh statement of the case as in the present form, the question is purely academic in nature and should be returned unanswered. IT is further contended by learned counsel for the assessee that though there is a judgment of this court on the point in issue which covers the question referred by the Tribunal but the judgment of this court rendered in Smt Ganga Devi v. CWT [1987] 166 ITR 325 requires reconsideration in view of the later judgments rendered in Ravi Mohan v. CWT [1989] 180 ITR 667 (MP) ; CWT v. Surajratan R. Mohatta (HUF) [1996] 217 ITR 537 (Bom) and R. Venkatavaradha Reddiar v. CWT [1995] 214 ITR 76 (Mad). Learned counsel for the Revenue, on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the Tribunal and submitted that the only question, which has been referred for the opinion of this court, arises out of the judgment passed by the Tribunal and no other question arises and that question was referred on the application made by the assessee and the question, as it stands, can be decided and there is no question of reframing the question by this court. IT is also contended by learned counsel for the Revenue that the Division Bench judgment of this court does not require any reconsideration as the same has been passed relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. R. M. Chidambamm Pillai [1977] 106 ITR 292.

(3.) CONSEQUENTLY, the reference is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, and it is held that the assessee is not entitled to grant of exemption under Section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act in respect of factory land and building owned by the partnership firm styled as Hindustan Radiators, which in fact collectively belongs to the partners.